Stoicism and Ancient Orthodoxy

“Man’s movement toward God begins with asceticism, with the birth of the virtues, and is completed by the attainment of apatheia — freedom from the influence of the lower world.”

So wrote Georgi Kapriev in his book Byzantine Philosophy: Four Centers of Synthesis, describing the views of the Cappadocian Fathers — Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa. The term apatheia itself was most likely borrowed from Stoic philosophy. Ancient Orthodox Christianity was formed on the basis of ancient philosophy — and not only Platonism.

However, Ancient Orthodoxy transformed the Stoic concept of apatheia, directing it toward love of God and neighbor rather than mere self-sufficiency. Unlike classical Stoicism, Christianity teaches a person to rely not only on himself, but first of all on God. At the same time, it would be incorrect simply to equate Ancient Orthodoxy with Stoicism, just as this ancient tradition itself was built not only on Stoicism, but also absorbed the legacy of Platonism, Aristotelianism, and other ancient traditions. Rather, Stoicism can be seen as one of several philosophical languages that helped articulate certain aspects of the ascetic and spiritual experience within Ancient Orthodoxy.

Stoicism is characterized by an emphasis on the vanity of the external world and the striving to mortify one’s desires. It does not completely reject the external world, but regards it as secondary and far removed from the spiritual ideal. What matters is learning to live in such a world without becoming attached to it.

Aristotelian ethics, by contrast, emphasizes moderation of desires, the importance of earthly success, and the formal ethical and juridical regulation of life, without sharply opposing the earthly to the spiritual. Where Aristotle relies on these external structures, Stoicism prioritizes a radical inner self-mastery. Here lies, in part, the gulf between Western Christianity and Ancient Orthodoxy.

A comparison of the Eastern Christian tradition and Western Christianity reveals a certain affinity between the former and a Stoic ethical paradigm, while the intellectual development of the West, in all likelihood, proceeded along Aristotelian lines.Aristotelianism entered Western discourse after the rediscovery of Aristotle through Arabic translations following the Crusades. This philosophical divergence roughly coincides with the historical split between East and West. According to some Bespopovtsy polemicists, this division marked the beginning of the age of the spiritual Antichrist, which culminated in the fateful year of 1666. From the Old Believer perspective, Ancient Orthodoxy was preserved most fully in Muscovite Rus after the Greeks themselves fell away from the ancient faith. After the secular and ecclesiastical elites of Muscovite Rus accepted the Nikonian reforms, this tradition continued to survive among the Old Believers.

The New Rite Church, often referred to as Nikonianism, partly adopted intellectual and theological tendencies associated with Western Christianity, while Old Believers understood this as a departure from the older ascetic discipline and spiritual strictness. For the Old Believers, this strictness was not an empty ritual, but a vital way of surviving in the harsh conditions of Northeastern and Muscovite Rus, and later in the even harsher realities of Petrine Russia.

Within this context, Old Believer prohibitions concerning music, spectacles, coffee, tea, and sugar, as well as shaving or even trimming the beard and moustache, are not merely obscurantism, but forms of ascetic discipline that can be understood in a broader Stoic framework. Even the Stoic Epictetus, in his Discourses, speaks of the importance of the beard as submission to nature, which endowed men with it, and also of his readiness to lose his head rather than shave his beard. This is exactly how the fourteenth-century Vilnius martyrs, Anthony, John, and Eustathius, acted when they were executed by pagan authorities in Lithuania largely for their refusal to shave their beards, turning the practice of wearing a beard into a supreme act of faith and resistance. It is worth noting that modern, reformed Orthodoxy completely overlooks the sin of shaving, a stance that stands in sharp contrast to the ancient Orthodox tradition.

Even the self-immolations of some Old Believers under conditions of persecution may be interpreted within the logic of Stoicism and early ascetic Christianity. Notably, the Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his Ethics, points out that ancient Church Fathers—such as Eusebius of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, and Ambrose of Milan—did not unconditionally condemn taking one’s own life under extraordinary conditions, viewing it as permissible to avoid extreme danger or when prompted by a divine impulse. However, this stance was later strongly rejected in Western theology, especially by Augustine of Hippo, who argued that violence defiles the perpetrator rather than the victim. This aspect of Stoicism, Ancient Orthodox asceticism, and early Old Belief is the most controversial, and I do not support it, though I view it with understanding.

“…In Russia, an unquestionable Stoic was Archpriest Avvakum (once his exhausted wife asked him: ‘How long will this suffering last, Archpriest?’ — ‘Until the very grave, Markovna,’ replied the Archpriest. Sighing, she answered: ‘Very well, Petrovich, then let us keep trudging on’) — and many, many thousands of others…

Of course, Stoics, as the most active and steadfast part of the population, have always constituted a minority in every country. But it was this socially significant minority that was often able to turn an unfavorable situation toward the better, although they themselves almost never managed to enjoy the fruits of their victory…

Thus: ‘Be like the cliff against which the waves continually break; it stands firm, and around it the raging waters grow calm.’”

So wrote the philosopher V. V. Sapov in the preface to a 1995 Russian collection of works by the Roman Stoics.